Critics now target Sabbath-keepers directly

Deutsch

Until now, debates about the true Sabbath have been conducted in a niche context. If they have occurred, then only within the churches, and across denominations. Now the “Sabbath or Sunday question” is leaving official Christian circles and is poised to become a general topic. Sabbath-keepers are now directly under fire.

Sabbath-Sunday debate receives focus

Gradually, the discussion about God’s true, biblical day of rest, which until now had been kept rather quiet, is turning into an open conflict. It wouldn’t really be an issue whether the true Sabbath falls on the 7th day or the 1st day of the week, since the 1st day, i.e. Sunday, is taken for granted. However, there are a few (relatively) small groups that are increasingly pointing out that it is not the 1st day of the week, but the 7th day, that is the day blessed and sanctified by God.

Among the most prominent advocates of the 7th-day Sabbath are the Seventh-day Baptists (SDB) and the worldwide Seventh-day Adventists, or “Adventists” (SDA) for short. The names of these Protestant churches already indicate what lies at the heart of their doctrine, among other things. Founded in 1863, the SDA has approximately 23.6 million baptized members worldwide (as of the end of 2024), while in the 1990s the number of members was still around 8 million. In 2019, the SDA was represented in 215 of the 237 countries and territories registered with the UN.

Much earlier, a breakaway group from the Baptist Church founded the STB in the mid-17th century. This church’s main branch is located in the USA. The SDB is represented in 22 countries and has a good 50,000 members.

Christian Sabbath keepers now benefit from greater interest

Thus, outside of Jewish communities, there aren’t many people who observe the 7th-day Sabbath. Yet the calls to affirm the unaltered validity of God’s Ten Commandments and the specific reference to the Fourth Commandment are being heard by more and more people. As was already the case with the Reformation of the 16th century, it wasn’t long before a reaction against such movements followed. Back then, it was the Counter-Reformation initiated by the newly founded Jesuit order, and today, almost certainly, it’s the same “Loyola Brothers,” but in a more forceful fight against the proclamation of the biblical Sabbath.

The topic of “Sabbath or Sunday” is already the central theme, even if this isn’t yet so obvious (Info). But that will change very soon, and it seems this train is already gaining momentum.

Eager to intervene

It is equally well known that the “Loyola Club in Black” operates in the background. The order’s members, who always present themselves as sanctimonious, don’t act in public like the “Men in Black” and no one notices – that’s just Hollywood – but rather work to change people’s thinking so that they postulate what has been declared to be appropriate. Therefore, the Jesuits began to roam European universities very early on. They have long since done so worldwide. With obvious success. Even the Hollywood mentality is a legacy of this order, which enjoyed great notoriety through the Jesuit theater (Jesuit drama) that was regularly held at the time. The order’s debut took place in 1551 at the University of Mamertino in Messina, Sicily.

The foundations were laid very early on

Among the (unfortunately) greatest and most lasting achievements of the Jesuit order is their separate interpretation of biblical prophecies. This is especially true with regard to end-time events, i.e., today. Here, too, the Jesuit Francis Ribera lent his hand at the end of the 16th century, inventing Futurism. His later brother, Manuel Lacunza, then added a pre-rapture of Christian communities at the end of the 18th century, before the time of a simultaneously formulated seven-year tribulation period.

This heresy did indeed find Protestant adherents, not only interested in it but passionately committed. These included the Presbyterian Edward Irving, who translated Lacunza’s work, and a member of the so-called Brethren movement, John Nelson Darby. Darby, in turn, ensured the continent-wide spread of Jesuit prophecies.

The US theologian Cyrus I. Scofield went one step further and developed his own version of the Bible, the Scofield Bible. While largely remaining in the original, it was commented on accordingly. Since its first publication in 1907, this “left behind” theology has manifested itself primarily in the USA (more info).

Thinking successfully adapted

Most of the churches that still call themselves evangelical today are similarly “polarized.” They anticipate the pre-rapture and consider Sunday to be high and holy. Even in Germany, the institutional Evangelical Lutheran churches are naturally Sunday-oriented.

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church considers Sunday a holy day and also the “Lord’s Day” can be considered a given, for it was precisely this Roman Church whose “Church Fathers,” based on their self-perceived “divine authority,” believed they had the authority to shift the biblical Sabbath to the first day (Info). However, the beginning of this was Emperor Constantine, a high representative of Roman paganism.

However, the origin of the Sabbath change and the subsequent work of its originator must be erased from people’s memory. After all, Sunday is supposed to be considered biblically based.

An Ode for Sunday Sanctification

The website “ThyBlackMan.com” is a community that discusses Christianity in a “Christian Talk” section. According to its own description, it is a community or meeting place exclusively for men of color.

The motto is: “Brotherhood at its Best.” Well, no problem. Apparently, at least one of the community operators is very close to Christian themes. One team member wrote an article about Sunday as the “official, biblical” day of rest. (Source).

The introductory words of the article immediately recall a reflection of Roman Catholic social teaching, most recently clearly applied to men and women in Pope Francis’s encyclical “Fratelli Tutti” (2020). This essentially also follows the path explicitly pursued by his successor, Leo XIV. It is a consistent continuation of Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891).

“In the grand scheme of worker exploitation and the unrelenting pursuit of profit, is it not right for there to be a dedicated day of rest?“

Not really solid

The author then speculates that the apostles “apparently” (i.e., not certain!) held services on two days. Prayers were held on Saturdays, since they were Jews, according to the Old Covenant, and after the crucifixion, according to the New Covenant, also on Sundays, the first day of the week.

What follows also sounds very familiar. These are the favored Bible passages that are supposed to serve as evidence that the early apostles had already moved the Sabbath to the first day. In this regard, the author quite rightly highlights Paul as a highly educated contemporary and quotes the passage Romans 14:5 from him.:
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.“

The suggested message is: “Choose the one day that you like best!”

Just read more than just 1 verse

But this can be refuted ad hoc, without any “obviously, perhaps, presumably.” Paul did not relativize the Fourth Commandment of God’s eternal law, but spoke of the customs and traditions of the influx of (former) pagans and new believers. In short: If they want to cling to their usual rituals and feast days—there are more than enough of those in paganism—and if they do not contradict God’s law, then they should be allowed to do so.

You “just” have to read a little beyond the demonstrated verses. Then you’ll recognize all by yourself what the context actually means. Just a few verses earlier, Paul stated that things must be conducted “purely and cleanly,” Romans 13:13:
“Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.“

Direct jump into dispensationalism

There is a worsening problem, the author argues, namely the conflation of church and Israel. There are even claims circulating that the church is the spiritual Israel. However, it must be clear here: “Israel is not the church.”
Although there are overlaps, the author says that fundamentally the Church and Israel should be viewed separately.

With this, the author directly endorses dispensationalism—the very element for which Ribera SJ and Lacunza SJ laid the foundation. Such a separate treatment of Israel and the Church is also a prerequisite for establishing the pre-rapture narrative. A variant that fits perfectly with the Jewish belief in a Messiah who will first appear in the future. Thus, it is ecumenical in nature.

Actually a self-laid egg

One can be grateful that the author unwaveringly refers to Abraham. The origin of the people of Israel and the Jews. That’s true. This literal Israel, which grew up in slavery, found liberation after a good 400 years of slavery through God’s work through Moses, and arrived in the Promised Land after 40 years of wandering in the desert, met an abrupt end. Specifically, in 70 AD.

Without “apparently, presumably, perhaps,” Jesus Christ spoke about the future of the people when he lamented the apostate Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-38):
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.“

Israel failed to live up to its task

Literal Israel messed up. They were supposed to not only receive the gospel and live by it, but also deliver it to the Gentiles. But they didn’t do so until the cup overflowed. This wasn’t even immediately after the crucifixion of Jesus, but after the stoning of the Apostle Stephen, 3.5 years later.

Jesus announced this here, too, in Matthew 21:42-43:
“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.“

Since the author highlighted God’s friend, Abraham, as the forefather from whose seed the people of Israel emerged, Paul’s explanation in Galatians 3:29 is also helpful:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.“

John 1:12-13 also helps us understand that it “does not matter” whether one can prove descent to one of the 12 tribes of Israel in the genealogy or not:
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.“

What about the Roman Church?

Dispensationalism, the separation of the Christian church and the people of Israel, suggested that Jesus Christ had two brides in view. However, He only had one bride, His people. This separate view is relatively recent anyway and was not at all supported by the Reformers.

Furthermore, the author completely ignores the perspective of the Church of Rome. The papal system sees itself, or rather the Church itself, as the “mystical body” of Christ, and Mary is the Mother of the Church. A 1,000-year reign of peace (the Millennium) would not even occur, since the Church itself already represents the Kingdom of Christ on earth and does not need to be established. This would also eliminate the possibility of a pre-rapture of the Christian community.

This also applies to the elevation of the Jewish people above all nations of the earth associated with dispensationalism. This, of course, is a completely unacceptable option for the Roman Catholic Church. It claims to be the representative of Christ and therefore endowed with the birthright to exercise “earthly leadership.” But somehow, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the author to even mention this in passing.

If the author were to consider the Church of Rome and its perspective on the matters he discusses, the chances would significantly increase that he would also recognize who actually planted this Sunday and dispensationalism nonsense in people’s heads.

Further voices on dispensationalism

The President of the Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Dr. Cornelis P. Venema, author of numerous books, including “The Promise of the Future,” wrote:

A new phenomenon

“Although premillennial dispensationalism is a relatively new viewpoint in the history of Christian theology, its position on God’s special purpose for Israel has shaped, even dominated, recent debates among evangelical Christians on the relationship between the church and Israel.

In classic dispensationalism, God has two distinct peoples: an earthly people, Israel, and a heavenly people, the church. According to dispensationalism, God administers the course of the history of redemption by means of seven successive dispensations or redemptive economies. During each dispensation, God tests human beings by a distinct revelation of His will. Among these seven dispensations, the three most important are the dispensation of law, the dispensation of the gospel, and the dispensation of the kingdom.“

As for the classic view:

“According to the traditional Reformed interpretation of Scripture, God initiated the covenant of grace after the fall in order to restore His chosen people to communion and fellowship with Himself. While the covenant of grace is administered diversely throughout the course of the history of redemption, it remains one in substance from the time of its formal ratification with Abraham until the coming of Christ in the fullness of time. In all of the various administrations of the covenant of grace, God redeems His people through faith in Jesus Christ, the one Mediator of the covenant of grace, through whom believers receive the gift of eternal life and restored communion with the living God“

Paul explained it (actually)

“The diversity among these various positions on the issue of Israel and the church testifies to the importance of this issue. Does God have a separate purpose and redemptive program for Israel and the church? Or, does the gospel of Jesus Christ fulfill God’s purpose to gather a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, Jews and Gentiles alike, into one worldwide family?

When the Apostle Paul declares in Romans 1 that the gospel is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile” (Rom. 1:16), he declares that there is one way of salvation for all who believe in Jesus Christ. Yet he simultaneously affirms that this salvation does not displace or supersede God’s redemptive purpose for the Jews but, rather, fulfills it. The ongoing debate about Israel and the church needs to maintain the Apostle’s balance, neither separating Israel and the church nor displacing Israel with the church.“

Voices of two reformers

The fact that dispensationalism is a modern construct is also demonstrated by the insights of the early Reformers, who by no means held the view that Jesus Christ had two peoples that He called His own.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther wrote a commentary on Galatians 6:16 (Luther’s Works, Volume 27, 1535)
“Here Paul attacks the false apostles and Jews who boasted of their fathers, their election, the Law, etc. (Romans 9:4-5). As if to say: “The Israel of God are not the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, but those who, with believing Abraham, believe in the promises of God now revealed in Christ, whether they are Jews or Greeks.“

John Calvin

“In a word, he calls the Israel of God, whom he previously called the children of Abraham according to faith (Gal 3:29) – this includes all believers, whether Jews or Greeks, who were united in one church.”
(Commentaries, Vol. XXI, William Pringle, 1979)

Adapted Version – Ecumenism

Gershom Scholem, professor of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted in “The Messianic Idea in Judaism” (1971) that Christians followed a different view:
“Judaism (in all its forms) thus envisions a coming of the Messiah on earth, a visible and tangible event. Christians see salvation in a spiritual sense (the transformation of the perishable into the incorruptible, the ascension into heaven to meet Jesus).“

Dispensationalism has clearly adapted the Jewish perspective, because this is by no means consistent with the Gospel. Exactly, ecumenical!

A kingdom of the Messiah established on earth is also very visible and very tangible. Jesus Christ said this in Luke 17:20:
“The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:“

The ancient people of God not rejected

To address a possible misunderstanding: No, God did not reject or even condemn His people Israel. God withdrew this people’s mission to spread the gospel throughout the world, but he did not remove them from the list of possible salvation, Romans 11:1.
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.“

Selective Sabbath allocation

God gave the Sabbath to “ONLY ISRAEL” (in capital letters by the author). After all, this is also stated in Exodus 31:13:
“Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.“

To whom did God say this? He said this to Moses, the leader of the people chosen by God after the Exodus from Egypt. So who else would Moses have told all this to? Back to the Egyptians, the pagan peoples you encounter on your journey? Of course, Moses should have explained this to the people of Israel, who were, after all, under his care.

Approximately 20 years after the Exodus from Egypt, the people of Israel numbered 603,550 able-bodied men from 11 tribes (excluding the priestly tribe of Levi), plus women and children (Numbers 2:32). This would be sufficient for a start, because the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles, including the Sabbath commandment, would take place after Israel had reached, conquered, and settled in the Promised Land.

Long before Sinai

God blessed and sanctified the 7th-day Sabbath long before Israel (Genesis 2:1-3). The emphasis is on sanctification. Even at a much later date, Jesus Christ declared it in Mark 2:27:
“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”
Jesus spoke, “for man’s sake” and not, “for the sake of the people of Israel.”

Further questions arose

The Sabbath commandment is the Fourth Commandment on the first of the two stone tablets inscribed by God personally. If this commandment applies only to the people of Israel, how does it compare to the other Nine Commandments? If it is binding for Christians, why is the Sabbath omitted? If it is no longer binding for Christians, why? (Info)

So, on the part of the author, this is also merely speculation, interpretation, conjecture, and supposition. In contrast, the Gospel speaks in clear, direct text. Since the Ten Commandments exist in unmistakable plain text, where could such an unmistakable plain text be found that would abolish or even change even a single letter, even a single stroke, of this law? Nowhere, for Jesus Christ also said about this in Matthew 5:19:
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.“

Again, plain biblical text, without any “obviously, presumably, perhaps.”

The meeting and breaking bread

“The first day of the week is the day the Apostles and the early church chose to meet on and it is the day that Christ rose from the dead and so worshipping on the first day each week is an everlasting memorial of the resurrection.“, says the author.

Again, nothing new. Sure, why shouldn’t they meet on the first day of the week? They even did this explicitly, as described in Acts 20. They came together to break bread with one another. They also collected the money for the church. Ergo, “That was a church service.” Really? Paul wanted to leave early the next morning and gave a sermon that lasted well past midnight. This began after sunset, for there were lamps on the table. Just as naturally, they didn’t do all this the day before, since this was, after all, the Sabbath, which the apostles observed according to the law.

Furthermore, the expression “breaking bread” is not a synonym for celebrating the Lord’s Supper. It simply means “sharing a meal together.” Otherwise, they would have had to celebrate the Lord’s Supper continuously, if one interprets it according to Acts 2:46:
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,“

Of course, the day of Jesus’ resurrection can be remembered and celebrated. Just as God should be glorified daily, especially through prayer. But all of this neither abolishes nor simply postpones the 7th-day Sabbath.

Sabbath keepers in direct focus

Now the author goes directly to the “Saturday worshippers,” as he himself puts it. A popular term, because, if one were willing, it could also be interpreted as meaning that Sabbath-keepers worshipped Saturday itself as their idol. A suspect territory with a bad aftertaste.

“Saturday worshippers” are quick to blame the Pope for moving the Sabbath to Sunday. This is an argument to stifle the first day of the week. But this attempt is doomed to failure, according to the author.

Furthermore, many Protestants believe that the Pope and his Roman Catholic Church deviated from the true biblical Sabbath for many centuries. This ultimately led to the Reformation, the beginning of the Protestant movement, and ultimately the fragmentation of the church.

Somehow familiar handwriting

One is immediately inclined to assume that this article originates from a Roman Catholic pen, if not from the hand of a Loyola Club ghostwriter. Denial, a complete reversal, and absolute ignorance of history. It reads as if the author worked through a checklist of keywords, added one or two select verses, and did not refrain from using terms that are certainly suitable for defamation (“Saturday worshippers”).

It is not the Protestants who claim that the papacy has transferred the Sabbath to Sunday, but the papacy itself emphatically affirms this process (Info). Even doubting this power to change God’s law is an affront, for this undermines the “divine authority” of this church. But the author completely omits the perspective of the Church of Rome. He simply portrays the church of Rome in the role of someone unjustly accused. Strange.

Reformers messed it up themselves

Added to this is a serious blunder by the author. It was not the Sabbath commandment that prompted the Reformation, but solely the Roman Catholic sale of indulgences. The chief salesman, Johann Tetzel, simply exaggerated this point. The 95 Theses posted by Luther dealt exclusively with church indulgences and everything connected with them. It was a mistake on the part of the Reformers to even insist on Sunday.

The Sabbath commandment was not even on the Reformation’s checklist of all points of contention (Info).

At the Council of Trent, Cardinal Regio loudly emphasized that the Reformation was completely inconsistent because, while invoking “sola scriptura,” it still sanctified Sunday. They should actually keep the Sabbath. Therefore, in this way, they were not recognizing the authority of the Gospel, but rather the authority of the Roman Church. Regio was absolutely right.

It would be surprising not to discover such a significant historical turn somewhere in Bible prophecy. Indeed, the inconsistency of the Reformation can be read. It is the fifth church of Sardis according to Revelation 3 (Info). Revelation 3:1-2:
“I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.“

Woe betide the church if it senses deviation

Well, the fragmentation of the unity of the Church. The greatest good of the Mother Church is to see its daughters gathered around it again. This is almost over anyway, because the majority of the former Protestant churches have long since betrayed their founding fathers, the Reformers, and exchanged their protests with the Mother Church for meek silence (Info).

It wasn’t the imposition of the Catholic faith that led this church, led by the papacy, to its centuries-long cruelty, but rather the preservation of its unity. At least, that’s a frequently advanced argument, because the rejection of Catholic (superstitious) beliefs ultimately endangered this unity. No matter how one might try to spin it.

“God would not have given The Church such sweeping powers…“, so der Autor. Well, which “God”? Here, too, the Bible is crystal clear about who actually gave power to the “beast from the sea,” Revelation 13:2:
“…and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.“

An expected development

One could also view this article as a presentation of the narratives accumulated so far. The author is not above making some very serious inaccuracies, and his readings are clearly based on ignorance of the Bible and a chronic obliviousness to history. However, the fact that the controversial issue of “Sabbath or Sunday” has received such emphasis suggests a new emerging quality in this matter. As already mentioned, the Sabbath, God’s Fourth Commandment, or Sunday, the papacy’s commandment, will become the central theme.

God referred to no other law as frequently as His Sabbath commandment. In the New Testament alone, connections to Sabbath observance are mentioned in approximately 80 places. An explicit abolition or replacement of the Sabbath, however, is mentioned in zero places.

God will answer it very quickly

Regarding the upcoming renewed Sunday law, it should also be noted that the first trumpet heard in this type (of seven trumpets) was heard in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Trumpets were always associated with warnings or war, during Israel’s campaigns against its opponents, and thus also against the enemies of God.

At the end of the 4th century, it was the Church of Rome that, after establishing the Sunday law (321), subsequently banned the Sabbath. Shortly thereafter, the first trumpet of God was heard, and with it began the campaign against Rome (Info). A “hint.”

The dragon is getting angrier, his time is running out and his declared earthly archenemy is known:

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)